bill while the senate continues working on president biden's nomination. tuesday, bipartisan leadership from the house and senate will meet at the white house to discuss the debt limit deadline. wednesday, the senate health committee holds a meeting with pharmaceutical companies on lowering the price o insulin. later, the fbi director and dea administrator testify before the senate appropriations subcommittee about the 2024 budget. watch next week on the c-span networks or c-span now. also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or on-demand any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> former attorney general bill barr looked back on his time in the trump administration, speaking at the city club of cleveland. in this discussion, he talked about his memoir and gave his take on the state of democracy in america.

this year marks the 150th anniversary of the cmva. thank you. are 150th anniversary is a remarkable milestone that has been made possible by the inspiration and literal perspiration of thousands of lawyers, judges, law students, paralegals, and business professionals who over the course of 15 decades have coalesced around a central mission, promoting the rule of law and legal procession. for years, the cleveland bar has

partnered with our friends at the city club to prevent -- present the conversation of consequence that ties into the annual team established by the american bar association. this year our theme is cornerstones of democracy. civics, civility, and collaboration. we believe so strongly in the importance of law that we expanded it again this year to encompass a full week of programs spotlighting the rule of law, people who work tirelessly to advance the rule of law, and institutions that exist to uphold the rule of law. as a nonpartisan organization comprised of nearly 5000 members, we strive to include and uplift diverse perspectives in all that we do. that is particularly true when our subject matter liens political in nature. in an era where too many people retreat to their own ideologies and refuse to listen, let alone

consider, information to the contrary, the cmb a remains committed to bringing people of different viewpoints, political persuasions, and experiences together for civil constructive dialogue. next to the connection provided by a long-term member and leader, judge jim mcgonagle, thank you, i'm pleased to introduce this year's law week friday forum, a conversation with the former attorney general to the united states, william pelham bar. [applause] >> very few people have the kind of legal experience mr. barr does. raised in new york i'm a he earned his bachelors and masters degrees from columbia university, followed by a jd with highest honors from the george washington university law school. he then secured a prestigious clerkship at the u.s. court of appeals for district of columbia, spent a decade in

private practice with the washington d.c. paste, and in 1990, joined the justice department as deputy attorney general. a year later, president george h w bush appointed mr. barr to serve as the 77th attorney general for the u.s., a position he held until the end of 1993. for the next when he five years, mr. barr held a variety of roles, including general counsel , followed by several years at kirkland and ellis. in 2019, president trump called on mr. barr to return to public service again. this time as the 85th attorney general for the u.s. two highlights of his second tenure as ag include his handling of the special counsel investigation into russian involvement in the 2016 election and his resignation in december 2020 when he refused to support

president trump's efforts to overturn the election based on unsubstantiated claims of fraud. given the length of his career, he brings a unique point of view on the rule of law and functioning of the executive branch. he lays much of it out in his book, one thing after another, memoirs of an attorney general. the title comes from the words one of his predecessors used to describe the role of attorney general. it hit number one on the new york times bestseller list and was described by the wall street journal as substantive and brilliant. others would described the book differently. [laughter] therein lies our opportunity for civil, constructive dialogue. our conversation with mr. barr will be moderated by the city club ceo, happy 10th anniversary, and a member. if you have a question, text it

to 330-541-5794. you can also tweet your questions at the city club and the diligent city club staff will try and work your question into the second half of the program. members and friends, please join me in welcoming the former attorney general for the united states of america, william barr. [applause] >> you can say whatever you want. >> honored as i am to be here, if we are going to make it as a country, we have to have a lot more civil discourse in this country. [applause] that is what this club is all about. i really feel honored to be part of the program. i want to thank my good friend,

judge jim mcmonagle for asking me here, and his colleagues, my friends from jones day, including several i have worked with in the government. you may not know this, but after i said i did not see any sign of election fraud all over the internet, a story i had been paid a lot of money over the years by dominion. it was dominion energy. [laughter] >> thank you for clearing that up. >> typical. >> welcome to cleveland. welcome back to cleveland. i know you have been here many times before. i wanted to start by asking why you felt it important to write this book, one damn thing after another and secondarily is it truly one damn thing after another? >> i had no intention of writing a book, i never liked the idea of writing a book so i had no intention of doing it, didn't

keep any notes, did not take any papers with me. that i can talk about. [laughter] anyway, i got a full-court press from my publisher, a number of people called me saying you have a unique perspective, people are going to be interested in hearing -- you worked for ronald reagan in the white house, george h w bush, and then this president was quite an unusual figure and people will be very interested in that. i allowed them to get me into it. they came with a preemptive nice financial offer but i also sat down and wrote a chapter like am i going to like this? this was before i agree to do it and i had fun, i agreed to do it and signed a contract and it was not fun. it was a job. the other part was a little therapy.

i enjoyed thinking about it and trying to put things in context and looking back over my career was an interesting process. >> the last portion of your government career as attorney general in the trump administration -- the way you describe it, i can understand why you might have felt that you needed a little therapy after. [laughter] >> as people probably know, i did not -- i am a lifelong republican and i did not support trump's nomination. i supported jeb bush and when he dropped out i supported rubio, but i was never a never trump er, and i thought the country needed a republican administration and so i supported trump once he became the nominee. all of my business friends in new york, people i was on board with, who had worked over the years told me all about him. that he was essentially bad news

and i should give no thought to going into the administration, which i did not. at a critical juncture, it was clear to me and i go through this in the book, all of the different factors, but he very much wanted to talk to me and i would not talk to him unless i felt i would actually say yes in the end or could say yes at the end of the day. i felt we were heading into a constitutional crisis, i was suspicious of the russiagate allegations, i thought they were being irresponsibly used to hound him from office. i eventually made a my mind that i would go in because i thought i was in the best position of stabilizing the institution, the department, the fbi. but also making sure that people did not run over the administration. so i went in. but trump was more of a handful than i expected. even with all of the warnings i got.

>> what had you expected and in what ways did he not meet expectations? >> i think probably the degree -- i'm not a shrink, i don't like people using these medical terms, but i think he is a narcissist, completely focused on his own interests. i felt he had some sound policy judgments. i generally agreed with his policies. i admired the fact he stood up for what he believed in. he said some hard things, wasn't kicking the can down the road on some difficult issues. but he was -- i think he was voted into office because people were angry, a lot of support for trump was because people were frustrated and angry. they wanted to send a message. they wanted a wrecking ball. they got a wrecking ball. trouble is it is hard to govern and help move the country

forward as a wrecking ball. and he is very contentious person and he is most happy when he is in the fight with someone and when he is in a fight with someone he will do anything to win. burn bridges. so it was a difficult time and i think every cabinet member had a hard time dealing with him. >> you point out the cabinet members who had less opportunity to deal with him seemed more successful. mike pompeo would just bring up stuff you were responsible for to change the subject. [laughter] >> he denies that, but if you were handling a portfolio he did not care about then you could just go off and do your thing,

which is good for a cabinet secretary, a very efficient way to handle the government. but he was more focused on the department of justice than most agencies. on the other hand -- he would talk to me a lot. when i was working for h w bush, who had known since cia. when i was his attorney general, we probably talked six times in a year and a half. i was probably in the oval by myself with him on something four times. but trump stayed in a lot of contact with his principal cabinet secretaries, a couple of calls a day sometimes. frequent meetings in the white house, very informal. i sort of enjoyed it. it was sort of a chaotic way of running things, but i sort of enjoyed it. sort of picked up meetings in the oval office where -- hey,

what do you think about this? [laughter] >> you can laugh now. [laughter] but it sounds in some ways you write about that in the book that it reminded you of a room in your fraternity house that this intense informality that can be great because it sort of is dynamic. it's dynamic and makes people feel more accessible who might not be, but also much less predictable. >> in my fraternity in college, we had called it the card game, , it was hard to detect who was there. you could never detect to was there and who wasn't, people were coming and going in a subtle way and kept going. that is with the oval office is like. i find myself sitting in there, going into talk about the drugs are border or something like that, hey, what do you think about the trade issue? but it was dynamic and i

actually, to me, the problem was this. before the election, you could persuade trump to back away from some reckless, silly step he was about to take, or some unnecessary position he would do to make it hard politically to achieve what we had to achieve, but it would take endless meetings and he would shift around all of the time. he thought he had the thing won and 10 minutes later it was reopened again. he would beat you up. you had to be willing to stand your ground. eventually if he said this will hurt you, all of a sudden he would start listening. if you could convince him it was not a smart move for him, he would change his position. at the time of the election, i felt he had a successful administration, i felt he had

been treated unfairly in many respects and other respects he was his own worst enemy but in many respects he was treated unfairly. i was satisfied with the performance and i felt it was a lawful administration and all the stuff about it being unlawful, we won. everything was challenged multiple times around the country, but we won those cases. it was not an unlawful administration. once he lost the election, there was no talking to him. his self-interest was all of a sudden no more leverage, you could not say this would hurt you because he felt he is already hurt so what is he have to lose? so he went off half cocked, and there was no getting him back on the rails. and the stuff about it being stolen, to me, once i started looking at it and understanding what had happened, that it was clearly wrong and i was not going to be a part of it. you somewhat famously explained

that to him in the oval office. how did that go? >> if you read nothing else, you can read that. that is the prologue of the book, but everyone was trying to get him out of this frame of mind that he was going to -- that he had won and there was some way he could stay in office. when i saw that was not working and he continued to attack the department of justice and me claiming we were not doing anything, and when we were in fact looking at some of the stuff, the key stuff, i just got -- the people on the hill were getting frustrated. i said to a reporter that so far we had seen nothing to support those claims.

i knew at that point i would probably be fired. i had a meeting later at the white house. i went over further meeting and he called me into the oval office. he was as mad as i've ever seen them. i went through the entire meeting details but i was expecting to be fired. i said i know you are unhappy, i am happy to resign. he slammed the table and said accepted. [laughter] so i said okay. i left. as i was getting in my car, the fbi suburban, to go back to my office, to pack, there was somebody pounding on the windows, and everyone jumped. he sent two lawyers to retrieve me and said he did not mean it, as soon as you left the office said i want you to come back -- i'm not coming back but we will talk about it later. i resigned two weeks later. >> it reminds me of the joke like leaving as you started.

fired with enthusiasm. [laughter] >> i want to shift gears. i want to mention for the benefit of our listening audience, we are talking with former attorney general bill barr of the united states of america. his book is called one damn thing after another and it is a page turner. and a barn burner. i wanted to turn to some of the more recent events of the news lately. in your work in previous administrations and the trump administration, you were involved in several points of the judiciary. this week justice clarence thomas has received a lot of scrutiny regarding perceived ethical challenges and i wonder if you could offer your point of view on it all. >> i have not gotten into the details of this. my general view is that each branch of government is a

separate branch and has to set its own rules. the executive branch's rules, congress cannot impose its conflict of interest rules on the president or vice president. they are not subject. those rules don't apply to them. they are a separate branch of government. same with congress. congress can impose rules on itself. there were no conflict of interest rules. we were in agricultural society, and most of the members of congress were farmers. it is more recent vintage, the idea that these conflict of interest will supply across the government, and it is the same with the supreme court. the supreme court is in itself a branch of government, and i do not think you have ethics rules applied on them by someone outside. i think they have to come to

their own determination about how they will apply rules, how they will be enforced. what makes sense and so forth. so i'm a little worried about this idea that you take rules applicable to other branches of government and slap them on. the other thing i would say is, from what i've seen, there doesn't appear to me that some of these benefits or what ever you want to call them were related to actual cases and decisions in the cases, but we will see what the facts ultimately show and it is up to the supreme court to deal with it. >> in a recent polling suggests americans have any unfavorable view of the supreme court, it is their favorability rating and , this is like pew, which has been asking these questions for decades and decades. suggesting 40%, somewhere between 40% and 50% of americans

have a favorable view of the supreme court. it is very partisan, the difference today is very partisan. 70% or more of republicans view the court favorably while only 20% of democrats do or something on that order. 30 years ago, it was roughly 80% of americans had a favorable view and it was 80% of both parties. a.g. barr: i think it is largely because there has been an effort to make the supreme court a super legislature, that instead of neutrally applying the law, sort of engages the united states in major societal changes without the political branches playing a role in that, and that has gotten them in trouble. and it really depends whose eyes are being gored. if they are making major changes that are liked by progressives,

then all of a sudden the supreme court is a great institution, if they are trenching, all the sudden that's a decision for congress and the people. then all of a sudden the left hates them and the right loves them. that's what happens, that goes with politics. americans are in a grouchy mood, they hate everybody now. [laughter] i understand the grouchy mood, i understand and sympathize with it in many respects but it also leads to a level of mindlessness and jumping to conclusions. when i know the whole story and see it a little more complicated or merits are not as people see them, yet you have these people always willing to trash the organization or trash the individual involved so you look at the approval levels of every person who sticks their head up above the rampart, and it is

the basement, that is the way is nowadays. which is one of the reasons i finally decided i should take the job of ag because as i said to people, anyone in their 40's or 50's or maybe 60 cannot afford to make controversial decisions in the executive branch because in the environment today their career is complete lead destroyed. they will not get a job later on. and so part of the problem in government generally is paralysis because everyone is a coward and does not want to make a decision. and so i think the only people who are capable of holding office and making decisions are people who are not looking for another job after the position, are just willing to do what they think is right and let the chips fall where they may. >> do you see a way out or a way to rebuild trust in institutions? a.g. barr: i have l

recently, sort of optimistic because i felt that the big dynamic in our country over the last 30 to 40 years has been the move of the democrat party sharply to the left and that is not me talking partisan, every empirical study showed that is the case and it left a lot of people behind them and they are going to a more radical group in the party. that is really the dynamic and that is the dynamic that brought trump to power, frustration with that and frustration with the so-called elites who are not resisting it but going along with it. so i have felt for some time that this was sort of or could be a replay of 1980 when one party goes too far in one direction and leaves a big spectrum for the other party to fill. i feel the way for the country back was for the republican party to get the hint and put up somebody who was because i normal.

[laughter] -- was quasinormal. [laughter] i think that would lead to a resounding victory and with enough strength in congress to reject the extremism on one side and show there is an auteur to other than extreme on the other side. dan: the extremism on the republican side is being an issue as well, -- do you see the extremism on the republican side is an issue as well? a.g. barr: i personally believe it is more reactive and a sense. the threat to american democracy is not authoritarian black shirts from the right, it is not the kind of threat. the threat of totalitarianism is the same as the 1830's, it is more the progressive totalitarian, that a lot of classic liberals are now talking, barry weiss, sullivan

-- yeah, andrew and people like that, that it is totalitarian. who are the people losing their jobs these days? is it people on the left? no. there is more mccarthyism going on in this country then happened during the car these days. and by big factor. in those days it was people in hollywood who would attend meetings of the communist party and after, kindergarten teacher, head of university, whatever, you could lose your job. that is the kind of creeping totalitarianism that i think is the danger to freedom in this country. i think the people on the right are not actually the threat to the democratic system. dan: did you feel that way january 6? a.g. barr: i did. i thought january 6 was a clown show.

anyone that thinks the republic was in serious danger on january 6 is out of touch. you had a control room with rudy giuliani and bannon and those people. the country could not have been safer. [laughter] this was a keystone operation that played into the hands of their adversaries. people say why were they treated differently than people in portland? no one feels that more keenly than i because we were trying to deal with people in portland but -- and they should. that was an attack on an american institution. but they'll dress the same, dressed in black, wore masks, came out at night with no distinguishing features, very hard to build a case. only people in the right walking into the most photographed place in the country all wearing distinctive clothing and no face

masks. the thing was a joke. i would point out no agency, even in the executive branch, went along with this. no state or republican governor, no republican legislature, no attorney general, deputy attorney general, no lawyers in the argent -- other agencies, it was a farce. like most thing trump cooks up on his own. a.g. barr: -- dan: before we get a questions, i want to turn our attention to issues you have dealt with as attorney general and specifically the issue of fentanyl and drug trafficking. and the opioid epidemic generally. judge polster is here who has overseen many cases, grateful for your service, sir, but i did not know is have the sense of particularly when it comes to trafficking that there is a lot going on the ordinary american does not really understand and i wonder if you could help us understand better why this is

such an intractable problem. a.g. barr: well i don't -- it is a problem that you have to attack on both supply and demand side. people who think you can treat or deal with this simply by treating people are wrong. the main reason people get treated and stick with treatment is because the enforcement system pushes them into it. unless we take a strong stand on the enforcement side against narcotics, i don't think we will get a handle on this through treatment alone. it is not working. i actually think we can make a lot more progress on the supply side, because we should be fighting it where the head of the snake's and the head of the snake are the cartels who control all of the drugs now coming into the united states. it is a one-stop shop and it is mexico now, made it a lot easier. first time i was attorney general we had burma, columbia, peru, and all of that.

it is mexico. what happened, prior to 1995, we destroyed the cartel. we were able to destroy the cartels because we took the gloves off and we went and dealt with them on their home turf. that stopped in 1995. that allowed the mexican cartels to grow into states within states. they challenged the government in mexico. they have total impunity, and in my mind they have completely corrupted the government of mexico. both with bribery, silver, or threat -- silver or lead. so they can operate with complete impunity. that is a dangerous situation. the legal -- the diversion of legal drugs is an important battle. i daughter was the chief opioid coordinator and she stepped down when i became ag, chai thought

-- i did not want her to do but she did it. that was the only year we suppressed opioids but that was mostly the legal opioids that were being abused. we started getting a handle on that but we saw the fennel and synthetics skyrocketing, and i do not see a way out of this unless we come on the supply side, look for this, like -- unless we take strong action in mexico against the cartels. i think we can have a big effect on it. i will be surprised if there is any notable in munition in the number of deaths. i think we are losing as many americans to illicit drug overdoses as we lost killed in action during the bloodiest year of world war ii. so we are sustaining casualties in this country at the rate we would in global war.

no one seems to care. it is incredible. dan: my final question before we go to the q&a, another issue you dealt with his gun violence. this week, a report from i believe it is the kaufman family foundation noting the leading cause of death among children under 19 years old is guns, gun violence. that has overtaken traffic accidents. what do you think should be done? a.g. barr: i think the primary -- you know, this debate goes on and on and i think that the violent problem will not be solved by addressing the guns. it will be by addressing the violent people. it always comes down to this, my estimate, first time i was ag, which was the point at which

violent crime peaked and went down for 22 consecutive years because our mantra in the states started going along with this was you have to identify the repeat violent offenders, the crime -- chronic violent offenders, keep them in prison for significant sentences and your crime rate will go down. that is what happened. our prison population at the time of crime was at its height, 750 violent crimes per 100,000 people, it was 800,000. over the next 22 years, we increased it to 1.6 million. and crime was cut in half. that included 5000 african-american murder victims avoided each year by cutting the crime rate in half, by putting the chronic offenders away in prison. that to me is the only way we will solve violent crime from an enforcement standpoint.

we should address the root causes, if you know what the root causes are, but if you can address them, that is something that will take 25 years to do. we have blood on the streets today and many of the solutions like education, job opportunities, they are not coming into places written by crime -- written by crime, so you have to face the crime. then people talk about let's control guns. they're a lot more guns out there than habitual violent offenders. 1% of the population is responsible for about two thirds of the violent crime. the predatory crime, not crimes of passion. i am pleased -- not pleased but i was interested to see that rate has come up in other countries. sweden did a study i think in 2015, 1% responsible for 63% of the crime. those are the people who are

committing the violence. the other thing is the way we reduce violent crime is aggressively go after people who use guns in crime. if you use guns in a crime, you should go away for a long time. when we did that, crime rates started dropping precipitously. yet people are not willing right now to say this guy, this is his third violent offense, armed robbery, he should go away for 25 years, no. everyone knows they picks up the paper and they see all the crimes committed by people who were just going through the revolving door. i think going after the guns is a fools errand, but the other thing is the extremism of the gun -- anti-gun people made it impossible to come to any kind of reasonable approach on guns because they make it plain with the end game. when they say we are coming for your ar-15's, which is essentially a modular rifle, essentially rifles today, but we are coming for your ar-15's and

this is our agenda and they put these extreme positions on it and everything looks to the people who want to defend gun rights is a slippery slope. it makes a very hard to reach any kind of reasonable agreement on things that you would think we would be able to agree to. i know this because i tried to negotiate this under bush and i tried to negotiate it under trump and it is hard getting -- the work of a few senators on the hill, they're like we will not use this as a christmas tree, let's see what we can agree to. that is the kind of solution where you can get some steps made. we saw that recently with what cornyn and wasn't murphy of connecticut, it was not a big step forward but it was a step forward and they got there by both of them saying we will not

listen to -- don't come in here with these killer amendments that are meant to score political points. the point is not to score political points, the point is to see if we can find common ground. over time we can get back to that approach on guns. when i was ag, i supported measures against guns. and to get back to that environment, i think you would have to convince the people who support guns that this is not the camel's nose under the tent and it is not a slippery slope. dan: mr. bill barr is a former attorney general of the united states of america. [applause] we are about to begin the audience q&a. i am dan moulthrop, chief executive at city club and i am our mahdi army to her -- our moderator those guests and

joining us from our livestream or broadcast on 89.7, our primary media partner, or on c-span as well. if you would like to tweet a question for our speaker you can tweet it @thecityclub or texted to 330-541-5794. our staff will work it into the program. may we have our first crushing? >> our first was a question texted to us. during your tenure as attorney general, you expressed concerns about the use of executive power and original rule of law. given the january 6 insurrection and former president trump's continued lie about the 2020 presidential election that was stolen even though you concluded and have publicly stated there was no voter fraud committed that was resulted in a different outcome how do you suggest we suggest we address this continued erosion of the rule of law? a.g. barr: the rule of law -- the erosion of the rule of law is not just a question of, to

me, it is not primarily a question of executive overreach. it is people -- rule of law, a lot of people use the term they never think about what it means. to me, all rule of law means is it is the key to democracy. democracy is the political translation of the golden rule which is you should only do to someone else what you are willing to have done to yourself. which means if the majority passes a rule, it should be a rule under which they are also living. that is the major reason we are willing to turn power over to the majority. is a democracy something that protects freedom? why would the founders have said democracy protects freedom? it is because of that critical ingredient. that is what consent of the governed actually means. it means if you are consenting to something it is because everyone will be governed by it

and the majority would not put on be something they are not also under. so the rule of law is that the same rules applied everybody and that means it's the opposite of hypocrisy. today in the public square, hypocrisy rains and we see it every day. in my opinion, generally speaking, the mainstream media has become completely have a critical and partisan, generally speaking. there are individual journalists i have great respect for but they will set up their attacks on something, the splinter in someone's eye and ignore the log and their allies i. it is a double standard and that bleeds over into the system itself. and i saw it in government and i see in government people are willing to use the criminal justice system as a political

tool to achieve political success and position themselves on an election year and so forth. i think that started around the time of watergate and has gotten worse and worse and turned into a bloodsport. both sides do it, and i don't know if there is a clear way out of it except go back to what i said before is that this trench warfare -- someone has to win it. someone has to get a victory, and right now i think dynamically in the country, with progressives moving so far to the left, it is an opportunity for taking that first step which is one of the reasons i'm so adamantly against trump because i think he -- i think it would be a tragedy if he is the nominee because i just think it will -- i do not think he will win but if he did when it would be more trench warfare. dan: 70 asked you if you have

another candidate in mind? >> welcome to cleveland. you mentioned earlier you had suspicions about the russiagate story. i'm of the opinion that was basically a coup d'etat that was failed in this country and you mentioned before congress that the white house, trump white house was spied upon. here we are six years later and it looks like they got away with it. how is nobody held accountable for what happened? a.g. barr: well this is another example of hypocrisy. russiagate was a big lie and it stumped me from the beginning. it did not fit together. i obviously waited to see with the facts were and went in expecting to see more to it, there was not. the allegations trump was inclusion -- colluded with russia to -- dan: it's been a while.

a.g. barr: yeah the hacking of the democratic emails and so forth. i felt it was a big lie that was used to cripple if not drive the trump administration out of government. does anyone acknowledge that today? does any of the media acknowledge it? when the media criticizes me for basically getting to the point, where i'm saying i don't see the evidence of obstruction here, that this whole thing was a hoax, but i appointed durham to get to the bottom of it, i did not presume it was a criminal offense. i asked him to get to the bottom and if there is something to be prosecuted he should go ahead and prosecute it. i think he will be coming out shortly with his report and i hope he casts light on what happened. the reason i think, if no one goes to prison for this hoax, it will be because durham and

others who looked at it felt they did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute somebody, which is a high standard. i have to say i do not like this whole environment we are in which is part of the same thing of easing the criminal justice system, that telling -- getting your side of thing out does not require other people get into orange jumpsuits. in other words, getting to the truth of something and illuminating for the public what happened is more important than collecting scalps because collecting scalps you are setting yourself the highest standard possible which is beyond a reasonable doubt and you are in a secret process and a lot of evidence cannot be introduced because of other evidentiary area rules and so forth. and it is not a good way of getting quickly to the truth of what happened. and when you say let's hold someone accountable, if you want to do it criminally, it is long

road to oh and it is done in secret. you are not told about it and i understand why people get frustrated but i think it is an ugly thing in our society when you have everyone talk about locking the other group of people up. they are so sure about it. i would like to see more accountability. it would not surprise me if laws were broken. when i look at the evidence, circumstantial evidence is compelling that something was rotten, but being able to say that and see it and conclude it is a judge mental thing for yourself is different than having enough evidence to put someone prison. very different standard. dan: thank you. >> welcome to cleveland. thank you for your public service. what is your advice to all of us in your and my party given the fact there is this -- and this

is my choice words -- a stranglehold of a group that is trump or nothing. how can we get other -- how can we do the party to get this way were more candidates can be viable and could be heard, and to turn the chances of a party around to possibly victory? the two announced candidates, all the polls show single digits. what does the party do and what can the party do or what he recommend the party do to get away from this one band situation? a.g. barr: i think it comes down to obviously this primary. i personally believe trump will not be the nominee. i think he will be beaten and i think a lot of what is going on now is a kind era, it conceals what i think are the basic dynamic. a lot of republicans are

abandoning ship because they want to win. i think a lot of republicans value what he did, they give him credit for a lot of things he did, they also know he is his own worst enemy and that he rings out more votes that he brings in. that is a fact of life. so because they recognize i think with how important this election is and they will not win the election with him at the helm, i do not think he will end up getting the nomination. i just think speaking parochial he among republicans, i think people have to -- i said when i first came into the government, i said a mega movement will have to grow up. by that i was being condescending, i said it have to -- it has to mature. other people understand why you want to send a message and poke someone in the high but that is not what the country needs, we need to build, we don't need a

wrecking ball. we also have to return to the politics of persuasion. trump is not interested in persuading anyone, the questioner said they are holding the public in part -- republican party and extorting the rest of the party to go along with it. i think the question has to be called now even if he does pick up his bowl and go because the consequences of him getting the nomination, one, he will lose election. he will not only lose, none of the states up for grabs are any closer to go with them, they are further away. he will not only lose himself but he will bring out some any votes in states like new york and california that the republicans will get devastated in the houses of congress. especially in the house of representatives. our margin is because from states like new york and california. he will do that. he will then bring in someone to

be his vice president on the ticket who is not a first caliber. anyone worth their salt -- worth their salt is not going to agree to be his vice president after what he did to mike pence so he has been bringing a sort of looney tunes person and that has become the standard bearer of maga and we are back to where we started from. so people have to start seeing this is nothing more than a cult of personality. and that we have other serious candidates who have most of the same policies and don't have all the baggage. it does not happen. maybe the democrats will be happy but i do not think republicans will be for a long time. >> hello. my name is francis waters and i am new to cleveland, been here for about a year and a half. i'm glad the cleveland city club

this morning -- glad for the city club form. my question is this, you mentioned earlier that he felt a lot was happening less the results of the left going extreme into the other side and extremism. i guess my question would be this, i was at harvard law and i had reagan's solicitor general as my law professor and i was friends with the folks who run the bushes to two in dallas for george w. it seems to me the republican party has gone pre-far to the right because the way i was taught constitutional law, when i had conversations with my friends who are george w and others in dallas, it's much more moderate than i'm seeing across the general party. many of them i think you are seeing they feel like the party

leading them. i'm curious, you say the left has gotten extreme, what is your view of many republicans who ask if you like their party has gotten pretty far to the right and left some of their core values they had before? a.g. barr: from my examination of it, when i say the republican party has not moved as much as the democratic party, i'm talking about the party. the general group of the party is premature to was. there are all kinds of charts showing this based on attitudes and positions on different issues and it has been the democratic party that has done a big quantum leap to the left. i think -- only democrats nowadays say my party left me? it is not that the republican party got up to them, it is that their party left them. i think that is a fact. what that did was it caused a lot of people, many of whom who

had been apolitical up at that time but working-class americans to react against the excesses of the progressives and become a stronger force in the republican party and increment to the republican party that became important for the republicans to bring into the fold. that led to a process in the republican party where the leadership of the republican party has become more homogeneous. it does not have the same span of northeastern rhinos and so forth. there's a lot more consistency in thinking in the republican party among the political leaders. to that extent, you were right that sort of the span of opinion , especially among prominent people in the party, has gotten narrower at that is because of the necessity for republicans to bring in and recognize legitimate concerns of working-class americans. i don't know if this is happened

in cleveland but certainly happening in many eastern cities that i'm familiar with and visited in my own which is you have this complete overthrow where it used to be in my neighborhood all of the houses have republican signed in pickup trucks had union and democratic signs, completely reversed area completely reversed. the republicans used to be the party wall street. you have to company hard for republicans on wall street these days, wealthy people. the vast majority of billionaires and millionaires are democrats. there has been the social change i'm talking about is partly a reaction to the basic dynamic i'm talking about which is the move of the democrats to the left. in normal politics, that is an opportunity. you should not go waltzing off on your own, to the other end of

the spectrum. but the people who are viewed as authoritarian in the republican party, i don't know what else to refer to them, they are reacting and have adopted a lot of the mindset of what they do not like on the left, which is trying to use the law and coerce power of the state to force people to their ideas of a perfect society. that is not what conservatism is about. anyway, that is sort of a riff on that. dan: we have time for one question. a.g. barr: thank you for being here. can you explain your decision to intervene in the sentencing of roger stone, a longtime friend and political ally of president trump. do you believe your actions were consistent with the department of justice's long-standing policy of independence from political influence, which i believe you addressed? a.g. barr: i addressed this in my book.

to me it is the up enemy of independence in applying the law and the word intervention, the attorney general is the figure that has the authority. the attorney general is not a clerk that just administers a department, the legal authority and discretion is vested in the attorney general and people in the department carried out on behalf of the attorney general. so some people might call it intervention and i call it [indiscernible] what happened was the young lawyers who had previously been in muller's office and wanted the obama white house who prosecuted the case under me and got a conviction under me wanted to ask for a sentence that was three times longer than the normal sentence for someone. i did not intervene. that issue was brought to me because there was a disagreement below me. i made the decision that we are going to go with whatever the

judge says. we are not going to argue for a sentence that is three times longer because if the rule of law means anything, it means you should not get special favors if you had a relationship with trump but should not be treated worse because he has special relations. leave it to a democratic sentencing judge, she agreed and gave him a 3.5 your sentence which is what i said would have been the norm. i felt in that situation, if you look at the substance, i did was i was -- i did what i was paid to do which was make sure the law was applied handily, an issue was brought to me and i handed -- handled it according to loyal and the sensing judge ended up agreeing with my position. dan: apologies to our friends at wk su, we will do one last question. [laughter] this man knows what -- we are coming up at the top of our here. >> i'm honored to be here. general barr, you are really my favorite person in washington.

i have admiration for the way you kept being relatively friendly with the president, the way you capped the walls from falling in and kept him from absolutely cracking up during russia, russia, russia as he was being assailed nonstop. having stead that -- said that, i think in yuri six was more profoundly disruptive -- january 6 was more profoundly disruptive and serious and maybe you sum up in your remarks but you are my favorite person washington. i think the most honest person in washington and the question i have, given that i trust you so, is donald trump -- a lot of my friends say he made mistakes and ok january 6, this and that, but it is his policies we would be voting for. given the pragmatic side also, do you think he is emotionally fit to be president of the united states?

i disagree. i think trump and biden will be the candidates, whatever that says about the united states. is he fit to be president of the united mr. barr: this is the way i will answer that. if you believe in his policies, what he is advertising, he is the last person who could actually execute them and achieve them. [laughter] he does not have the discipline, he does not have the ability for strategic linear thinking or setting priorities. or how to get things done in the system. it is a horror show when he's left to his own devices. you may want his policies, trump will not deliver trump policies. he would deliver chaos and if anything, lead to a backlash that will set his policies much further back than they otherwise would be.

[applause] host: bill barr is the former attorney general of the u.s. of america, he is the author of a memoir and he joined us as part of our authors in conversation series. we would also like to say thank you to guest at tables. dominion energy ohio, glenn made global cleveland ideastream public media and -- thank you all for joining us. [applause]

♪ announcer: early saturday morning the coronation of king charles iii will take place. he became king of the lytic kingdom following the death of his mother queen elizabeth ii, the u.k. longest reigning monarch. c-span will air the coverage of the coronation in its entirety it or :00 p.m. eastern, from the web research into westminster abbey to the official grounding of the new king. the coronation of king charles iii saturday at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span or online at c-spanrg. announcer: former president donald trump's video deposition wait for the jury in the e. jean carroll civil defamation and batty ial. itaseen released to the public. former presidentet for the deposition in january 2022. to watch it, go to c-span.org or download the free cspan now app mobile app, ai